DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (11,757,229).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Johnson et al., Fig. 7 shows a breakaway electrical connector, comprising:
a line side (10) that is connectable to a line conductor (19), the line side having a first magnet (30) and a first plurality of contacts (14); and
a load side (20) that is connectable to a load conductor (29), the load side having a second magnet (50) and a second plurality of contacts (24),
wherein the first and second magnets have a fixed position in the line and load sides, respectively, so as to provide a magnetic connection force to maintain the line and load sides connected to one another with the first and second plurality of contacts electrically coupled to one another.
Johnson et al. disclose the magnetic connection force is low (column 6, lines 19-24 and column 8, lines 11-18), except for the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side. It would have been obvious to modify Johnson et al. to have the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) for better engaging.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 8 shows the first and second magnets are arranged so that the first plurality of contacts can only be electrically coupled to the second plurality of contacts in a defined pattern.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 8 shows the first magnet and the second magnet are multiple pole magnets.
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 8 shows the first and second magnets each comprise polarities arranged so that the first plurality of contacts can only be electrically coupled to the second plurality of contacts in a defined pattern.
Claims 1, 3, 9-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al. (9,647,386) in view of Johnson et al. (11,757,229).
Regarding claim 1, Andrus et al. disclose a breakaway electrical connector, comprising:
a line side (2, Fig. 4) that is connectable to a line conductor (not shown), the line side having a first magnet (47, Fig. 4) and a first plurality of contacts (46); and
a load side (1, Fig. 1) that is connectable to a load conductor (not shown), the load side having a second magnet (24, Fig. 2) and a second plurality of contacts (28a),
wherein the first and second magnets have a fixed position in the line and load sides, respectively, so as to provide a magnetic connection force to maintain the line and load sides connected to one another with the first and second plurality of contacts electrically coupled to one another.
Andrus et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side
Johnson et al. disclose the magnetic connection force is low (column 6, lines 19-24 and column 8, lines 11-18). It would have been obvious to modify Andrus et al. to have the magnetic connection force is low, as taught by Johnson et al. for better engaging.
Andrus et al. and Johnson et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) for better engaging.
Regarding claim 3, Andrus et al., Figs. 9A and 9B show the first plurality of contacts each comprise a front portion, a rear portion, and a biasing member (94), the rear portion being connectable to the line conductor, the front portion being movable with respect to the rear portion along a connection axis, the biasing member normally biasing the front and rear portions apart to define an air gap therebetween.
Regarding claim 9, Andrus et al. disclose the first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (47 and 48, Fig. 4) and the second magnet comprises a plurality of second magnets (24 and 29, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Andrus et al., Fig. 1 shows the first and second plurality of magnets are arranged so that the first plurality of contacts can only be electrically coupled to the second plurality of contacts in a defined pattern.
Regarding claim 11, Andrus et al. disclose a breakaway electrical connector, comprising:
a line side (2, Fig. 4) that is connectable to a line conductor, the line side having a first magnet (47) with a first polarity and a first plurality of contacts (46); and
a load side (1, Fig. 1) that is connectable to a load conductor, the load side having a second magnet (24, Fig. 2) with a second polarity and a second plurality of contacts (28a),
wherein the first and second plurality of contacts form an electrical connection when in contact with one another in a defined pattern, wherein the first and second magnets are fixedly positioned and configured in the line and load sides, respectively, and the first and second plurality of contacts are positioned and configured so that the first and second polarities attract the line and load sides towards one another when arranged in the defined pattern, but repel the line and load sides from one another when not arranged in the defined pattern.
Andrus et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side.
Johnson et al. disclose the magnetic connection force is low (column 6, lines 19-24 and column 8, lines 11-18). It would have been obvious to modify Andrus et al. to have the magnetic connection force is low, as taught by Johnson et al. for better engaging.
Andrus et al. and Johnson et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) for better engaging.
Regarding claim 12, Andrus et al., Fig. 9A shows the first plurality of contacts each comprise a front portion, a rear portion, and a biasing member (94), the rear portion being connectable to the line conductor, the front portion being movable with respect to the rear portion along a connection axis, the biasing member normally biasing the front and rear portions apart to define an air gap therebetween.
Regarding claim 15, Andrus et al. disclose the line side comprises a first fitting (44, Fig. 4) configured to connect to the line conductor and the load side comprises a second fitting (25, Fig. 2) configured to connect to the load conductor.
Regarding claim 16, Andrus et al., Figs. 2 and 4 show the first magnet and the second magnet are multiple pole magnets.
Regarding claim 17, Andrus et al. disclose the first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (47 and 48, Fig. 4) and the second magnet comprises a plurality of second magnets (24 and 29, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Andrus et al. disclose the first and second plurality of magnets are arranged so that the first plurality of contacts can only be electrically coupled to the second plurality of contacts in the defined pattern.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (11,757,229) in view of Johnson et al. (11,374,367).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson et al. (‘229) disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the line side comprises a first fitting configured to connect to the line conductor and the load side comprises a second fitting configured to connect to the load conductor.
Johnson et al. (‘367), Fig. 12 shows the line side comprises a first fitting (53) configured to connect to the line conductor and the load side comprises a second fitting (23) configured to connect to the load conductor. It would have been obvious to modify Johnson et al. (‘229) to have the line side comprises a first fitting configured to connect to the line conductor and the load side comprises a second fitting configured to connect to the load conductor, as taught by Johnson et al. (‘367) for better connection.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al. and Johnson et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Choi (9,640,921).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Andrus et al. and Johnson et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the first plurality of contacts are configured so that the air gap of a first of the first plurality of contacts closes before the air gap of a remainder of the first plurality of contacts.
Choi, Fig. 4A shows a terminal (125) is shorter than other terminals (1242-1244); therefore, the terminals (1242-1244) are contacted to mating terminals (1074) before the terminal (125), that makes the air gap of a first (125) of the plurality of contacts closes before the air gap of a remainder of the first plurality of contacts (1242-1244). It would have been obvious to modify Andrus et al. to have the one terminal is shorter than the other terminals, as taught by Choi for better engaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues Johnson et al. (‘229) does not disclose: “the magnetic connection force is lower than a strain relief limit of the lone side and the load side”.
The Examiner disagrees.
Johnson et al. (‘229) disclosed the magnetic connection force is low (column 6, lines 19-24 and column 8, lines 11-18), but not mentioned the magnetic connection force is lower than strain relief limit of the line side and the load side. Therefore, the Examiner applied the case law to make the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection more properly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH TAM T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2094. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdul Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH TAM T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 07/31/26
thanh-tam.le@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights